If I could rewind the tape... in other words, if I knew that there was going to be a tape.

If I could rewind knew there was going to be the tape, I would have chosen a different word avoided the clear language that makes what I mean to say comprehensible, and I would have deployed the mind-numbing, meandering verbiage that has work for me for years either to effectively lull people into thinking that they in their weakness must have drifted off and missed the point or to arrive at the absurd but self-flattering belief that they appreciate the subtle explications of The Man of Nuance.

72 comments:

The Palestinians could have their own state tomorrow. All they have to do is give up on pushing the Jews into the sea and drowning them. But they won't do that, so ...

Meanwhile, the Palestinians living in Israel, like black people in the US, are the LUCKIEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD (that reminds me of a song). They have more rights and a better life where they are.

The Palestinians will never have "the prosperous state with full rights that the Palestinian people deserve." They will have the same shithole that most in that region have. If living under Islam, they'll have "Islam Rights," ie. yeeeechhhh.

Look at the map of Israel.Ariel Sharon has accomplished what he set out to do, and there is not going to be any "two-state solution."In 2-3 generations the "Arabs" and non-believing liberal Jews will equal or outnumber the militant Jews, and Israel will become a single, secular state.

The Crusaders held Jerusalem for 200 years. We can only hope the Jews do so well. But there will be no peace, no two state solution. Eventually Islam will return because they are relentless and they have more children.

One of the things that has bothered me from the start with Kerry, is that he is just too dumb to be Secretary of State. Probably would do better than the present incumbent as Attorney General, but Secretary of State requires subtlety, and that requires more intelligence than Kerry seemingly has ever exhibited. How can a Harvard grad appear so dense? Because he went there at a time when a large percentage of its admits were either legacies, or descendants of rich and powerful people. And, he had gone to top prep schools. His standardized test scores were apparently abysmal.

I think that a lot of people got sucked in because Kerry sounds so subtle and convoluted. But that is because he is lost, and not because he is trying to lose everyone else around him.

I agree that Kerry should resign. But he won't, and his President will keep him around, just like he does AG Holder, despite having been found in contempt of Congress.

Interesting to see how my pro-Israeli Jewish friends will try to spin this. They were so heavily into cognitive dissonance this last election, justifying why they would vote for Obama again, despite his seeming preference for the Palestinians in this debate.

A two-state solution? Who wants a two state solution? The Palestinians don't want a two-state solution. They want a one-state solution, and that state won't be called Israel - and Israel knows it. A two-state solution will be interim, not final. Set up a Palestinian state and it will become the staging area for continuous assaults on Israel until everyone is Israel is dead or a dhimmi in a Palestinian state that encompasses the entire area.

One thing good about Kerry is that he speaks both English and French. From POTUS to SCOTUS to COTUS, we are blessed with barely monolingual superstitious and religious types. On SCOTUS, we don't even have a Protestant, for chrissake.

"If I knew there was going to be the tape, I would have avoided the clear language."

It looks like the problem is in Ann quoting part of a statement by Kerry (the part in italics) and then adding commentary to that statement of her own. It might have been better for her to have put the Kerry quote in quotes. Maybe. Of course, I do this sort of thing all the time here, and expect that most everyone will get the translation back and force between what I said and what someone else said. The sentence by Ann that is party Kerry and part her is the one where the subjunctive might have been appropriate, and the one following that in the next paragraph starts out maybe even worse, mixing the two parts of the previous statement.

The actual paragraph in the NYT is:

“If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution,” he said.

Which really isn't that bad as spoken English, except that the shift in tenses is a bit jarring. As Ann noted, it essentially says that if Kerry were able to have a do-over, he would say things differently. (But, of course, the Secretary of State doesn't get do-overs of his public statements). So, concluding that first sentence with "I would have chosen a different word..." is the incorrect part. According to one grammarian, "would have chosen" is Conditional II Simple, which means an action that might have taken place in the past. Which is a long way of pointing out that Kerry was essentially saying that if he could do something in the future, he would have done something differently in the past. It is this sort of muddle headed rhetoric that raised questions about Kerry's actual intelligence, as contrasted with his ability to sound somewhat erudite, until you broke down what he had actually said.

In Ann's defense here, she was blogging early in the morning, and a lot of us (including me) make much more egregious grammatical errors on a routine basis in this forum.

From the top guy on down, does anyone in this adminstration think before he or she speaks? Lonesome Joe Biden would be an embarrassing outlier in any other administration. In this one he's right in the mainstream for gaffes produced per day.

I betcha Donald Sterling wishes he could rewind the tape too. If Donald Sterling said it, and he meant it by what people are saying, why does John Kerry think he can get away with saying it, but wouldn't have if he knew there was a tape recording??? Juan Williams said "He didn't say it in public"...neither did Sterling, so does he get a pass???

Maybe Obama picked Kerry for State so that Hillary would look better by comparison. What a mediocrity that guy is.

Of course, trying to bring peace between Israel and the Arabs is a fool's errand, and frankly none of our business. Israel can defend itself, the Arabs have plenty of friends, and all we've gotten for our troubles is more people hating us.

"“If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution,” he said."

Does it mean he want all Jews out of "Palestine" and all "Palestinians" out of Israel? John, please clarify...

There are so many ways in which this is harmful. Consider just two. The impact in Israel, on the politicos and generals now focused on how to respond to the prospect of an Iranian bomb specifically and the spiraling chaos on all of Israel's borders more generally, can only be to confirm the view that they are completely on their own. Team Obama keeps letting their contempt for Israelis slip out whenever they think they are speaking off the record.

The impact on the Iranians, Syrians and assorted other homicidal thugs running most of the rest of the region will also comfirm their view that the Americans will never come to the aid of the Israelis when push, inevitably, comes to shove about the Iranian bomb. Perhaps the only player who will (secretly) applaud any Israeli action will be the Saudis.

There will be a terrible price to pay for the fecklessness of Team Obama, on display now literally the world over. God help us as we and so many others reap the whirlwind that is sure to come.

“If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution,” he said.

The form is subjunctive contrary-to-fact, which could read either:

"If I could have rewound, I would have chosen" OR "If I could rewind, I would choose."

That we have a Secretary of State who testified against his fellow soldiers before the Senate during a war, denouncing them....that alone, alone, is reason to think we have gone far, far off the rails.

Back in 2012 Hamas head Khaled Marshaal said "Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of land, We are not giving up any inch of Palestine. It will remain Islamic and Arab for us and nobody else. Jihad and armed resistance is the only way."IF you consult your maps you'll realize he isn't just talking about the West Bank. They are talking about historic Palestine. And currently the only portion not controlled by muslims is Israel which is controlled by THE JEWS!This is the peace partner that Israel has to deal with.

And if you think maybe Hamas has moderated their views here he is back in march of this year talking the same crap:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178559#.U1_VfUo8DTo

If the left wants to defend terrorists, they should at least know what the fight is about. They, as per usual, are the useful idiots, talking about how Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing, meanwhile ignoring that Hama's flag has a picture of Palestine that includes all of Jordan and all of Israel.

Palestinian militants will never accept a two-state solution. The precedent was set in Jordan, and their behavior has never changed.

As for the confederal states of Israel and the Palestinian territories, the conditions vary from modern suburbs to urban slums, etc. Although, there is greater stability since the two major factions, Fatah and Hamas, fought their "civil war" and separated. However, Israel itself, is an integrated state.

They keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

Apartheid was never a viable charge against Israel, not with Arabs in the Knesset and Arab Israelis with every damned right Jewish Israelis have except being in the army. And the Jewish Israelis are conscripted.

(I thought conscription was supposed to be wicked?)

Saying "apartheid" and throwing the most selective subset of facts to give it a veneer of plausiblity in the face of anyone who listens, well, it's useful, isn't it?

When Kerry is not pretending to be the impartial arbiter, it is clear he and Obama view the safety of the Israelis to be an impediment to their ambition. He and his boss are too arrogant to conceal it and the Israelis are aware of it.

As the world, even the Democrats, knows, Palestineans, Iranians and other Muslims would slaughter Israelis down to the last man, woman or child to end Israel as a nation.

Israel is supposed to negotiate into that?

It is unfortunate that so many of the American Jews who finance the anti-Semitic Democrats are lefties first and Jews second.

Those old 1967 borders which are the 1949 truce lines are Obama's goal for the Jews. They create in indefensible border so Jihadists can get to waive their bloody hands aloft to the black meteorite god alah as they ripped the beating hearts from 6,000,000 Israeli young men, women and children.

Kerry gave Netanyahu warning that unless that was agreed to the USA was going to cause the whole world to abandon Israel like we abandoned the old South African Government.

Kerry's view of Israel as apartheid is the same as Obama's view of gay marriage before he declared he was for gay marriage. We all know that this is, in fact, the lefts position on this. IF he's back tracking on the stated position it's because the left feels like they can't say certain things until they are elected.Or, if they are in power they have to temper their remarks becuase it's not the proper moment to reveal what we all know already.

The recent spate of unpleasant events in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Iran should not cause those who love peace and justice to distract their gaze from the atrocities practiced by Israel. There have been several cases of pregnant women who were forced to wait at Israeli checkpoints. How can anything in the Islamic world possibly compare to that barbarity?.......It doesn't matter if your grammar or syntax is fuzzy provided you use the right buzzword. Kerry used the wrong buzzword. That's what Obama truly excels at. He only uses the loftiest buzzwords.

Prior to Jordan being created was there such a thing as a Jordanian? No, they were Palestinians. Technically they were not that either, since the Jews were initially called that and since Palestine wasn't a proper country. But lets at least define what Palestine means. Lets go by Hamas's definition in fact. Their view of Palestine is all of historic Palestine, which includes Jordan and which includes Israel. There goal is to reunify historic palestine and take the remaining territory so that it's all in the hands of Muslims.

So, if we take Hama's view of Palestine, then muslims already have a Palestinian state. They just happen to call it Jordan. It's the majority of historic Palestine. And the majority of Palestinians (as defined in modern times) already live there.

Why are we applying different interpretations of Palestine depending on who we're talking about? Lets take Hamas at their word. Palestine means historic Palestine and all that territory. And so, they already control the majority of historic Palestine. There is no need for a second Palestinian state.

When I was in college I had a roomate who was a jew who was a strong believer in Israel. And I was the lefty type guy who called Israel the apartheid state. I was just regurgitating things I heard in my circle of friends. But clearly I was in the wrong. We lost touch (probably because I was such a hateful c*nt when it came to my assault on Israel)but he was right and I was wrong.And I really feel ashamed that I ever uttered such hate speech. And was such a supporter of tolatitarianism.Since I haven't seen him in ages I can't apologize in the flesh, but I wish I could.

If you wanted a right of return to be enforced and all the people who claim to be Palestinian or had a claim to land came back the west bank couldn't support them. But Jordan could. Because it's a much larger land mass.So, even the arguments posed by the left as to what should happen would be better served by making jordan the official Palestinian state.

I understand that Christians in PLO controlled lands find compelling reasons to emigrate from those lands. They have that in common with their co-religionists in Egypt and Iraq. What are the chances that Kerry, Obama, or, for that matter, any western leader will call attention to their plight.

Why? Jordan has its own people. It also has a large, underpopulated land. However, the Palestinians proved that they could not coexist peacefully. Not with Jews and not with other Arabs. Of course, their ambitions were first expressed with a display of raw aggression against Jews, Christians, Muslims, and other minority groups who did not submit to their domination.

The demographic assumptions Kerry makes have been proven wrong and he knows it. Caroline Glick talking to Mark Levin breaks it down as well as discussing her book advocating a one state solution, The Israeli Solution.

So you don't believe in God, eh? So how do you explain the Palestinians' always making the wrong choice in their long term strategy? Ever read Exodus and the story of Pharo, et al.? We're living through an epoch of Jewish history of biblical proportions.

n.n wrote: Why? Jordan has its own people. It also has a large, underpopulated land. However, the Palestinians proved that they could not coexist peacefully. Not with Jews and not with other Arabs. Of course, their ambitions were first expressed with a display of raw aggression against Jews, Christians, Muslims, and other minority groups who did not submit to their domination.

Chris Hayes described Israel as an apartheid, i.e. a minority is ruling a majority. Howeer, Jordan actually fits the bill here. The hashemites rule Jordan, but the majority of Jordan is made up of Palestinians. Lets not forget how it came to be. ALL OF HISTORIC PALESTINE, was promised to the Jews for a Jewish homeland. But then the brits changed their minds and gave 77% of that promised land to the Arabs. So, Israel only got about a 4th of Palestine. The remainder of Palestine is still in the hands of Arabs. They then, rather than let local Arabas in Palestine run Palestine gave it to their WW I buddy's (see Lawrence of Arabia)the Hashemite royal family.So, Jordan IS a Palestinian state. It makes up the majority of the land mass of Palestine AND it's majority population is already Palestinian. If it were given to Hamas, they of course would use it to continue to wage war against Israel until they got the rest of Palestine under Muslim thumb. But if we are talking about a two state solution then really we already have one.

"The proximate cause of their (unhappiness was Kerry’s bow to Israeli security in terms he surely knew Israel wouldn’t accept. “We are working on an approach that both guarantees Israel’s security and fully respects Palestinian sovereignty,” referring to an American security proposal that would station the IDF along with “international” forces in the West Bank and along the Jordan River, a requirement of King Abdullah of Jordan as well as of Israel.

But if you guarantee Israel’s security, you guarantee its legitimacy and its longevity. The Palestinian movement hasn’t come to that point.

No thank you, said longtime Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. “We want to achieve a peace based on Israel’s withdrawal from lands occupied in 1967. We won’t accept limiting Palestinian sovereignty over our land.” Abed Rabbo told Voice of Palestine radio that Kerry was trying to “appease Israel through agreeing to its expansion demands in the (Jordan) Valley under the pretext of security.”

So, uh, who controlled the west bank in 1967? JOrdan did. So should the land go back to Jordan? Again, with the idea that Jordan is the palestinian state, just not ruled by Palestinians.Except Jordan illegally ANNEXED the west bank and held it for 20+ years. It didn't belong to them. And note during that whole time there was little outrage about lands being illegally occupied by Jordan. BECAUSE Jordan is muslim, and they just don't want the land in the hands of the JEWS. LAter on hte PLO waged war against the ruling family in Jordan too, but until then King Abdullah kept saying how Jordanians are Palestinians. Convenient until the PLO tried to overthrow them. So I don't know what the Palestinians hope to achieve with this. The land wasn't theirs in 1967, and the group controlling it had seized it illegally.

I would have deployed the mind-numbing, meandering verbiage that has work for me for years either to effectively lull people into thinking that they in their weakness must have drifted off and missed the point

I agree with you. Jordan is the second state in the two state solution. The caveat I cited was the historical conflict between Palestinian ruling factions, Fatah and Hamas, and the local Arab government. Wherever Fatah and Hamas go, a violent conflict is sure to follow. They are ambitious fellows, with a long history of disharmony.

“If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution,” he said."

Maybe Kerry can explain how to negotiate honestly and fairly with someone who intends to kill you. As for apartheid maybe Kerry has not noticed that the Palestinians have made it clear no Jew is allowed to live in nevermind own land in a Palestinian state. Jordan strictly prohibits Jews residing in Jordan.

JR565 - "Lets not forget how it came to be. ALL OF HISTORIC PALESTINE, was promised to the Jews for a Jewish homeland. But then the brits changed their minds and gave 77% of that promised land to the Arabs. "

==================Basically, mendacious Zionist propaganda fed and duly regurgitated by jr565.The Brits made a lot of promises to both rich Jews helping fund WWI - and to Arabs willing to fight and die to shed Turkish rule over their homelands.

Promises that were contradictory.

The Brits and French, post-WWI, set about screwing the Arabs out of just about every promise made..and TRIED to honor their pledges to rich and powerful Jews, except the Brits soon discovered the land grab of the whole of Palestine/TransJordan was too much for the betrayed Arabs to stomach.

Intense Arab rioting stopped the Jewish settlement of what is now Jordan which had never had a Jewish presence, and much of Palestine where there was arable land and which was already well-settled by Arabs for milennia.The only way the Jews could have owned all of Palestine and TransJordan was on the blood and bayonet point of gentile British soldiers. (Who had no great interest after the Great War of fighting and dying for Britain in another war, let alone fighting for a wealthy and alien people..)

By 1922, it was obvious that the Rothschilds and others were not to get 100% of what they demanded, either.